elementary teachers' epistemological and ontological understanding of teaching for conceptual...

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 44, NO. 9, PP. 1292–1317 (2007)

Elementary Teachers’ Epistemological and OntologicalUnderstanding of Teaching for Conceptual Learning

Nam-Hwa Kang

Department of Science and Mathematics Education, Oregon State University,

239 Weniger Hall, Corvallis, Oregon 97331

Received 7 June 2006; Accepted 22 June 2007

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to examine the ways in which elementary teachers applied

their understanding of conceptual learning and teaching to their instructional practices as they became

knowledgeable about conceptual change pedagogy. Teachers’ various ways to interpret and utilize students’

prior ideas were analyzed in both epistemological and ontological dimensions of learning. A total of

14 in-service elementary teachers conducted an 8-week-long inquiry into students’ conceptual learning as a

professional development course project. Major data sources included the teachers’ reports on their

students’ prior ideas, lesson plans with justifications, student performance artifacts, video-recorded

teaching episodes, and final reports on their analyses of student learning. The findings demonstrated three

epistemologically distinct ways the teachers interpreted and utilized students’ prior ideas. These supported

Kinchin’s epistemological categories of perspectives on teaching including positivist, misconceptions, and

systems views. On the basis of Chi’s and Thagard’s theories of conceptual change, the teachers’ ontological

understanding of conceptual learning was differentiated in two ways. Some teachers taught a unit to change

the ontological nature of student ideas, whereas the others taught a unit within the same ontological

categories of student ideas. The findings about teachers’ various ways of utilizing students’ prior ideas in

their instructional practices suggested a number of topics to be addressed in science teacher education such

as methods of utilizing students’ cognitive resources, strategies for purposeful use of counter-evidence, and

understanding of ontological demands of learning. Future research questions were suggested.

� 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 44: 1292–1317, 2007

Keywords: general science; teacher cognition; teacher change

Many research studies have examined students’ preinstructional conceptions since the 1970s,

resulting in a conceptual change pedagogy (Driver, Squires, Rushworth, & Wood-Robinson,

1994; Vosniadou & Ioannides, 1998; Wandersee, Mintzes, & Novak, 1994). Conceptual change

pedagogy advocates a constructivist view of learning in which students’science learning is defined

as making sense of new information based on prior experiences and ideas. From this perspective, a

teacher plays a critical role in student learning as a facilitator who helps students connect what they

Correspondence to: N.-H. Kang; E-mail: [email protected]

DOI 10.1002/tea.20224

Published online 4 October 2007 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

� 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

already know to a new experience or concept (Vygotsky, 1986). Therefore, the research on

conceptual change has the potential to guide teachers in planning instructions that use student

ideas as a natural part of learning (Duit, 2004). Teachers can benefit from research on conceptual

change through an understanding of the influence of students’ prior ideas on learning (Osborne &

Wittrock, 1983; Treagust, Duit, & Fraser, 1996).

Recent literature on teacher education has revealed that ‘‘Research knowledge has had little

effect on the improvement of practice in the average classroom’’ (Hiebert, Gallimore, & Stigler,

2002, p. 3). In particular, research has shown that teachers are not knowledgeable about conceptual

change learning, let alone making use of the research findings (Meyer, 2004; Morrison &

Lederman, 2003). Moreover, a few studies have found that elementary teachers lack conceptual

change pedagogy (Akerson, Flick, & Lederman, 2000; Asoko, 2002).

The lack of a connection between conceptual change pedagogy and classroom teaching

practices is disconcerting given the wealth of research on conceptual change. As an effort to

promote research-based teaching practices by connecting conceptual change theory to teacher

practices this study addresses elementary teachers’ learning about conceptual change pedagogy.

As science educators and cognitive psychologists have developed conceptual change

teaching and learning theories, they have focused on how concepts change through formal

learning experiences (Vosniadou & Ioannides, 1998). Research in this field has provided evidence

of the tenacity of students’ prior conceptions and ways these hinder students’ conceptual

understanding (Osborne & Freyberg, 1985). In explaining the tenacity of students’ conceptions

and how their conceptions change, researchers have found that two cognitive aspects of

conceptual learning need to be addressed: epistemological and ontological (Chi, Slotta, & de

Leeuw, 1994; Duit & Treagust, 2003; Vosniadou & Ioannides, 1998). While the former explains

how students develop concepts, the latter explains the nature and types of student concepts in

comparison with scientific concepts. In other words, the epistemological dimension of conceptual

learning addresses the process of learning, and the ontological dimension addresses the nature of

the concepts.

Previous studies about teachers’ teaching for conceptual change have focused on

epistemological aspects of learning. These studies, therefore, inform teaching approaches

directly as shown in the literature on teaching models (Driver & Scott, 1996; Wittrock, 1994). On

the other hand, studies about the ontological aspects of learning can inform the nature of the

content to be taught as compared with students’ conceptions. This ontological dimension can also

inform teaching approaches because the properties of teaching content are critical for pedagogical

decision making (White, 1994). Recent literature on conceptual change teaching and learning

has attended to different aspects of learning including the ontological dimension (Duit, 2004;

Pocovı́, 2007; Tsui & Treagust, 2007; Tyson, Venville, Harrison, & Treagust, 1997). Through

multidimensional analysis, these studies have increased sensitivity in understanding conceptual

learning processes. By the use of the increased sensitivity, this study analyzed teachers’

understandings of conceptual change pedagogy in both epistemological and ontological

dimensions of learning. In so doing, this work aimed to understand teachers’ professional

learning about conceptual change and to find ways to support their learning.

The purpose of this study was also to examine ways in which elementary teachers applied

their understanding of conceptual learning and teaching to their instructional practices as they

became knowledgeable about the principles of conceptual change pedagogy. Two research

questions guided this study: (a) To what extent do teachers recognize and/or understand the

epistemological dimension of conceptual learning and utilize it in teaching? (b) To what extent

do teachers recognize and/or understand the ontological dimension of conceptual learning and

utilize it in teaching?

TEACHING FOR CONCEPTUAL LEARNING 1293

Journal of Research in Science Teaching. DOI 10.1002/tea

Theoretical Framework and Literature Review

A constructivist perspective defines learning as conceptual change (Fosnot & Perry, 2005).

Conceptual change theory is concerned with how knowledge restructuring occurs, what the results

of modifications are, and what characteristics of knowledge should be pursued in science

education. Research on conceptual change has traditionally focused on epistemological aspects of

learning, but recently other aspects, such as ontological and affective facets of learning, have

emerged as important parts of conceptual learning (Duit, 2004; Tyson et al., 1997). In what

follows, the perspectives on the multiple aspects of conceptual learning that guided this study are

reviewed along with the relevant literature.

Epistemological Dimension of Conceptual Change

The epistemological dimension of learning addresses a process of conceptual restructuring in

which students evaluate new knowledge by using evidence that supports or conflicts with their

prior ideas. In the process, the teacher’s role is conceptualized as convincing students of the logic

in scientifically accepted ideas (Hewson, 1996; Smith, diSessa, & Roschelle, 1993; Zohar &

Aharon-Kravetsky, 2005). Teaching for conceptual change, therefore, involves making students’

prior ideas explicit, presenting an anomaly that students’ prior ideas fail to explain, and proposing

a scientific explanation that can inclusively explain both prior experience and the anomaly.

Therefore, students are expected to be dissatisfied with their existing conceptions and then

perceive scientific alternatives as intelligible, plausible, and fruitful, so that they modify or

abandon their prior conceptions to make their thinking consistent with scientific ideas (Strike &

Posner, 1992).

In the epistemological dimension, a teacher may take a position on a continuum anchored by

two extreme epistemological stances: presenting scientific knowledge as orthodox, which implies

a positivist view of knowledge—knowledge as given facts—or presenting scientific knowledge as

competing theories to evaluate in comparison with other ideas (Hashweh, 1985; Kinchin, 2000;

Smith et al., 1993). In the epistemological spectrum, Kinchin (2000) described three distinctive

positions: (a) a positivist view in which teachers believe that students know little and that

presenting the correct ideas would help students gain scientific ideas; (b) a misconceptions view in

which teachers recognize that students hold stable and widespread misconceptions that interfere

with learning scientific concepts and believe that confronting misconceptions will help students

abandon their misconceptions; and (c) a systems view in which teachers believe that students are

novice thinkers, their prior ideas result from a productive thinking process, and teaching should

help the students develop scientific conceptions based on their prior knowledge and thinking

skills. From the third perspective, students’ prior ideas and experiences serve as resources for

learning new concepts rather than barriers to learning (diSessa, 1988; Hammer & Elby, 2003;

Smith et al., 1993).

Studies have reported that teachers’ epistemological understandings are connected to

teaching practices (Appleton & Asoko, 1996; Glasson & Lalik, 1993; Hashweh, 1996; Kang &

Wallace, 2005; Mintzes, Wandersee, & Novak, 1998; Tobin, 1993; Zohar, 2004). For example,

Tobin (1993) has illuminated that a teacher’s epistemological learning occurred in parallel with

the construction of pedagogical ideas and implementation. Similarly, Kang and Wallace (2005)

have shown that teachers’ pedagogical use of lab activities is consistent with their epistemological

beliefs. Focusing on the epistemological aspect of conceptual change teaching, Appleton and

Asoko (1996) described an experienced elementary teacher’s application of conceptual change

pedagogy after an intensive in-service training. Their study illustrates the extent to which a

1294 KANG


teacher’s grasp of the epistemological aspect of conceptual change pedagogy manifests in

teaching practices. Therefore, the connection between teachers’ epistemological understandings

and teaching actions provides a basis for understanding teachers’ learning about the

epistemological aspect of conceptual change pedagogy evidenced in teaching practices.

Ontological Dimension of Conceptual Change

Research has shown that even epistemologically well-designed classroom teaching is

limited in restructuring students’ prior knowledge (Wandersee et al., 1994). To understand the

difficulties in restructuring students’ conceptions, researchers have examined other dimensions of

learning including ontological, affective or motivational, and sociocultural dimensions (Chi,

1992; Duit & Treagust, 2003; Pintrich, Marx, & Boyle, 1993; Tyson et al., 1997; Vosniadou,

1994). Among these additional dimensions, this work focuses on the ontological dimension.

The ontological dimension concerns the nature of conceptions, focusing on how students

perceive reality. In this dimension, conceptual restructuring involves helping students see reality

in different ways. Thagard (1992) claimed that concepts are organized into a conceptual structure

consisting of kind-relations and part-relations. According to his theory, conceptual change occurs

in various degrees including adding new instances, adding new relations, adding new concepts,

collapsing distinctions, and reorganizing hierarchies. An example of adding a new instance is

when a child adds a pet dog to his concept of animal. Examples of adding new relations are when

the concept of water changes from one element to molecules made up of hydrogen and oxygen

(part-relation) and inclusion of insect as a kind of animal (kind-relation). An example of adding a

new concept is when electromagnetism is added to electricity and magnetism. In the history of

science, collapsing a distinction happened when Darwin reduced the distinction between species

and varieties and when Newton abandoned the Aristotelian distinction of natural and unnatural

motions. Reorganizing hierarchies happened when Copernican theory reclassified the Earth as a

kind of planet instead of the center of the universe (Thagard, 1992).

Among the various ways one can experience conceptual change, changing the hierarchical

structure through collapsing or reorganizing relations requires a high degree of rethinking because

it changes the ontological nature of concepts. According to Chi (1992), a conceptual change that

occurs within an ontological category is relatively easy. However, a conceptual change across

ontological categories is what causes difficulty because it necessitates a more fundamental change

in thinking. Chi et al. (1994) suggested three major ontological categories: matter; process

(procedures, event, interactions); and mental states (emotions, intentions). Conceptual change

within the same ontological category requires addition or subtraction of certain properties of a

concept while keeping the same ontological identity, but conceptual change across ontological

categories requires assigning the concept to a new category that has completely different traits. For

example, students may perceive heat as matter like hotness and coldness that can be possessed and

released (Driver, Squires et al., 1994). Students who undergo a conceptual change must change

their understanding of heat from a thing (matter category) to a flowing body or to kinetic energy of

molecules (process category). In another instance, students may perceive that animals grow

because they want to (mental states category) as opposed to a physiological process (Carey, 1985,

cited by Chi et al., 1994). Venville and Treagust (1998) also provided an example of ontological

change of the concept of gene. The students in their study reconceptualized their notion of genes as

‘‘matter’’ to be passed from parents to offspring into a biochemical ‘‘process.’’

Conceptual restructuring across ontological categories requires one distinct instructional

step: teaching about different attributes of concepts in the ontological dimension (Chi et al., 1994;

Thagard, 1992). Without recognizing differences between students’ conceptions and scientific



conceptions in the ontological dimension, instructional processes will be impoverished (Chi,

1992). Therefore, teachers need to understand the nature of concepts held by their students and the

nature of concepts to be taught. Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer, and Scott (1994) have provided

an example of classroom teaching in which a teacher tries to change the ontological nature of

students’ conception of light. In the example, the teacher challenges students’ existing view of

light as a source or an effect ‘‘by asking where the sunlight comes from’’ (p. 9), demonstrating

traveling light, discussing the observation with students, and introducing the scientific

representation of light. During the activity, the teacher keeps trying to introduce students ‘‘to

the scientific way of seeing’’ [italics in original] (p. 10), and to shift the ontological nature of

student conceptions of light to an entity that travels in straight lines.

Conceptual Change Pedagogy and Teacher Education

Although there has been a plethora of research on conceptual change in science education,

little research has examined teachers’ learning or use of conceptual change pedagogy in the

classroom. During professional development on conceptual change in science, Osborne and

Freyberg (1985) found that teachers readily recognized students’ prior ideas with which they had

come into the science classroom, but the teachers did not appreciate the tenacity of students’ ideas

or the strong impact of students’ prior ideas on learning. Therefore, the teachers did not plan

lessons to utilize students’ conceptions and ways of thinking. Similarly, Akerson et al. (2000)

found that the experienced elementary teachers in their study were knowledgeable about students’

naive ideas but did not explicitly address them in teaching. These studies and others (Morrison &

Lederman, 2003; Piquette & Heikkinen, 2005) imply that teachers might recognize students’

naive ideas rather easily even if they have only marginal teaching experience, but they need

professional development to be able to implement purposeful instructions built on students’

cognitive resources. Teachers should be able to develop the pedagogical knowledge and skills

necessary to design instructional experiences for students’ learning through conceptual change

processes. Teacher educators should then assist teachers in learning conceptual change pedagogy.

Therefore, understanding the ways in which teachers interpret conceptual change pedagogy and

put it into practice is a significant step for teacher education in conceptual learning.

Methods

Participants

A total of 14 in-service elementary teachers (11 white women, 1 Hispanic woman, 1 African

American man, and 1 Asian American man) participated in this study. All teachers were enrolled in a

course taught by the researcher as a part of the master’s degree in curriculum and instruction. The

degree program was designed for in-service teachers and focused on professional development.

Most of the teachers were enrolled in the program for a pay-raise or to renew their teaching certificate

rather than for purposes of academic pursuit. Three of the teachers had more than 5 years of teaching

experience, whereas the others were first- or second-year teachers (Table 1).

The teachers in this study conducted action research (Mills, 2006) projects in which they

examined their own students’ conceptual learning in a systemic way. The details of the projects

and their effects on the teachers’ professional development have been examined in a separate

investigation (Kang, 2007). Before the teachers started the projects, they were introduced to the

theoretical background of conceptual change pedagogy through reading and discussion on

research in science education (Driver, Squires et al., 1994; Osborne & Freyberg, 1985; Shapiro,

1296 KANG


1994; White, 1988, 1994). Instead of using specialized terminologies, the teachers were introduc-

ed to the epistemological dimension of learning in terms of how students learn and the ontological

dimension in terms of the differences between questions of what and why/how in scientific and

student conceptions. The teachers then started 8-week-long action research projects. They had a

common goal of identifying students’ prior ideas and developing students’ conceptual

understanding through purposeful instruction. The teachers completed a series of tasks including

developing probing tools (White & Gunstone, 1992), identifying students’ prior ideas, planning

lessons (Driver & Scott 1996; Fensham, Gunstone, & White, 1994; Osborne & Freyberg, 1985;

Osborne & Wittrock, 1983; Wittrock, 1994), implementing the lessons, and assessing students’

conceptual learning throughout their instruction (White & Gunstone, 1992).

The teachers shared each task on a weekly basis in the form of discussion and microteaching.

During the process, the teachers’ understanding of the concepts was challenged by their colleagues

and the researcher. For example, several teachers taught states of matter. When we shared lesson

plans, one teacher raised a question as towhether metals could turn into a gaseous state in response to

a teacher’s claim that ‘‘All matters in one state can be changed into either of the other two states’’

(course discussion note). Through an extended discussion and web search for boiling points of

several metals and the freezing point of helium, the teachers obtained a better understanding of the

concept. In this way, the teachers’subject matter knowledge was discussed in a safe environment and

increased to some degree (Shymansky, Woodworth, Norman, Dunkhase, Matthews, & Liu, 1993).

To help teachers address students’ ideas during instruction, I asked the teachers to indicate explicitly

where in their lesson plans and implementations they had addressed their students’ prior ideas both

in writing lesson plans and course discussions on lesson implementation. During the discussions, the

notion of discrepant events and utilization of students’ scientific ideas and thinking skills as

resources for teaching were highlighted to broaden the teachers’ perspectives.

Data Collection and Analysis

The main data sources for this study were the teachers’ reports on their students’ prior ideas

about their target concepts (SI), lesson plans with justification (LP), video-recorded teaching

Table 1

Teacher profile (pseudonyms)

Name Years of Teaching Teaching GradeTopic (Teaching Hours on Topic:Number of 50-minute Periods)

Kendra 10 K Constellation and solar system (8)Merrill 12 K Rain formation (5)Angela 1 1 Changes in states of matter (8)Jake 1 1 Storms (5)Morgan 1 1 Cloud shapes and formation (7)Sarah 1 1 Weather (5)Cleva 1 2 Solar system (6)Ella 1 2 Gravity (5)Melba 1 2 Magnets and compass (5)May 1 2 Three states of matter (6)Kayla 6 3 Changes in states of matter (5)Naraa 2 4 Buoyancy and density (4)Joyce 1 5 Types and formation of volcano (8)Tyrel 1 5 Land formation (5)

aTeaching fourth grade for the first time.



episodes (VT), and final reports on their data analyses and conclusions (FR). Student data were

collected such as pre- and post-assessment results and student artifacts from performance

assessment (SA). However, data on student achievement served only for triangulation purposes

because the focus of this study was not to examine the effect of the teachers’ teaching on students’

conceptual learning but rather to examine teachers’ understanding of student learning in two

dimensions of conceptual change. For example, teachers’ interpretations of students’ prior ideas

were collected through the teachers’ reports. The accuracy and inclusiveness of their reports were

examined by looking at student assessment results. In general, teachers provided fairly

comprehensive and accurate descriptions of students’ ideas. However, over-generalized or

simplified statements based on few salient aspects were noted in some cases. This tendency was

considered be an indication of the ways the teachers understood student learning.

In addition, the teachers’ essays on their learning and teaching histories (HIS), researcher

notes on course discussions (CD), and final learning reflections (LR) provided information on their

backgrounds as presented in the next subsection.

The content analysis method, in conjunction with the constant comparison method (Miles &

Huberman, 1994; Patton, 2001), was used for data analysis. Kinchin’s (2000) categories of

epistemological positions were used for the analysis of the teachers’ epistemological

understanding, whereas Thagard’s (1992) degrees of conceptual change and Chi et al.’s (1994)

ontological categories were used for the analysis of the teachers’ ontological understanding. Each

individual teacher’s data profile was composed as data were collected from each data source. Data

from each individual profile were coded by idea units, which ranged from a single phrase to several

sentences. These codes were then categorized into two groups: epistemological and ontological

understandings. Within each of these categories, the participants’ commonalities and differences

were identified for further analysis. As a result, the teachers with common patterns in their

understanding of conceptual change learning and teaching were grouped together. Table 2

demonstrates examples of codes for the teachers’ epistemological understanding.

As shown in Table 2, the teachers’ emphases on repetition of scientific concepts (first example

of Morgan’s statement) and separation of students’ prior knowledge from content to be taught

(second example of Morgan’s statement) were considered to indicate a positivist perspective on

learning. In contrast, an emphasis on countering students’ prior ideas with no indication of

utilizing what students already knew was considered to indicate a misconceptions view (Ella’s and

Kendra’s statements). Finally, any indications of considering students’ thinking processes (e.g.,

‘‘[students] explain,’’ ‘‘reasoning,’’ and ‘‘thought process’’) involved in students’ prior knowledge

and classroom learning were considered to indicate a systems view.

Most data on teachers’ ontological understanding consists of their interpretations of students’

prior ideas, their instructional goals for students’ learning, and analyses of learning outcomes.

Whether teachers recognized the process nature of concepts or whether they attempted to change

or reconstruct the ontological nature of students’ prior conceptions was continually asked during

data coding. For example, two teachers commonly found that students provided names of objects

when asked about definitions of states of matter. One teacher attempted to broaden her students’

conceptions of states of matter in terms of knowing more examples (within the same conceptual

structure), whereas the other teacher attempted to deepen her students’ conceptions in terms of

teaching the possibilities of changes of states (changing conceptual structure).

Context of the Study

The teachers in this study came to the course with little science learning experience and

expressed their feelings of disconnection from science. Prior to the course, all teachers had only

1298 KANG


one elementary science teaching methods course in their undergraduate program, and their

science content background ranged from two to three college-level basic science courses. None of

the more experienced teachers mentioned any exposure to professional development courses for

science education. Cleva’s reflection represented the general feeling of the teachers about science

teaching: ‘‘Prior to taking this class, teaching science scared me. I was terrified at the thought of

teaching a subject I abhorred as a child. In all honesty, I even feared taking this class’’ (LR).

On the basis of the lack of experience in science and science education and the low

emotional attachment to science, a naive view of science learning and teaching was expected.

At the beginning, all the teachers professed that they were unfamiliar with terms such as

‘‘misconceptions’’ or ‘‘alternative conceptions’’ (CD). This suggested that they had not been

formally introduced to conceptual change theory. Even with the lack of familiarity with the formal

language, the few experienced teachers mentioned some of students’ naive ideas that they came

across during the past teaching years.

Although the teachers were introduced to various probing methods (Driver & Scott, 1996;

Osborne & Freyberg, 1985; White & Gunstone, 1992) they used a limited number of initial

probing methods. The most popular method was the K-W-L (Ogle, 1986) in which teachers asked

students what they knew about the topic to be taught (K) and what they wanted to learn about the

topic at the beginning of a unit (W), and then asked students about what they had learned at the end

(L). A total of 9 of the 14 teachers used the method in the form of whole-class interview. The main

reasons for the popularity of the K-W-L included confidence in using the method, ease in

Table 2

Exemplary statements coded as instances of epistemological understanding along with evidentiary words

italicized

Categories Examples

Positivist view I feel much of my success stemmed from the repetition of the concept that waspresented to the children. (Morgan, FR)

[Identifying students’ prior ideas] is important so the teacher is not teachingwhat the students already know. (Morgan, FR)

Misconceptions view [During demonstration] I asked the students what would happen if I let go ofthe string . . . it allowed students to see that not only does gravity pull downto the ground, but it also keeps the moon in place. (Ella, FR)

I then introduced a discrepant event by. . . . I was very pleased to seehow many of my children were able to change their misconceptions.(Kendra, FR)

Systems view I continued probing by asking for explanations of their answers (Angela, SI)[Students] were brought to the front of the classroom and explained what

liquids they brought from home and why it was a liquid. (Angela, FR)After my lessons were implemented, students described a liquid as something

that can be ‘‘poured,’’ something that. . . ‘‘moves all around’’ when youshake it. (Angela, FR)

As each lesson progressed the students became more and more engaged in thethought process. (Cleva, FR)

I feel a majority of my students are very independent thinkers and learners.(Nara, FR)

I am seen as the questioner, and not the answerer. (Nara, FR)I would like to see a majority of my students take it upon themselves to do

research. (Nara, FR)Many students didn’t pay much attention to causal reasoning. (Sarah, SI)Some students have perceptually dominated thinking. (Sarah, SI)



implementing the method because students did not need to write things down themselves, and the

practicality in probing an individual student’s ideas given the many students in the class (CD). The

other probing methods used included interview, word association, drawing, and POE (prediction–

observation–explanation). Melba used interviews because she had an additional teacher who co-

taught the class. She conducted informal pre- and post-interviews and took notes of individual

students’ responses verbatim. However, the depth of the interview data was similar to that of

K-W-L data due to its brief nature.

Trustworthiness

Trustworthiness is judged by two criteria: conformity to standards for research practice and

ethical sensitivity to the politics of the topic and setting (Rossman & Rallis, 1998, pp. 43–54).

I was a participant observer who guided the teachers’ action research. Therefore, the impact of my

presence was expected or even desired. However, it was critical that the teachers developed an

agreement that teaching for conceptual learning was important and worth trying so that teacher

learning became authentic to their needs rather than simply meeting the course requirement.

Therefore, an extensive discussion on the conceptual change research was employed before the

teachers started action research and continued throughout their action research. Moreover, a safe

environment was created in which the teachers could talk freely about their negative as well as

positive feelings (see Kang [2007] for details).

Due to the impact of the researcher on teacher learning, triangulation of data from multiple

sources was critical. To distinguish the teachers’ meanings from those promoted in the course,

only consistent and repeated patterns or themes emerging from various data sources were included

in each teacher’s profile. For example, many teachers included discrepant events in their lesson

plans as a way to foster students’ conceptual learning. However, the teachers’ ways of using

discrepant events, evidenced in course discussions, video-recorded teaching episodes, or final

reflections, were not always intended to confront students’ ideas; some were mere demonstrations

of phenomena. In such cases, the teacher’s interpretation of ‘‘discrepant event’’ was carefully

analyzed across various data sources in the search for a consistent meaning.

All the tasks completed by the teachers were discussed in class. Therefore, course discussions

served as member checks in which participants had opportunities to elaborate and clarify their

written reports, and my interpretations of the meanings teachers presented in writing or actions

were cross-examined.

Findings

As described previously, the teachers in this study were formally introduced to the conceptual

change pedagogy for the first time. Therefore, the findings reported herein originated from their early

understandings of conceptual change pedagogy as they were becoming familiar with the notion and

utilizing their initial understandings in teaching. Therefore, potential for further growth in their

understanding should be expected. In addition, the teachers were asked to implement conceptual

change pedagogy through a series of tasks. Therefore, the teachers’ understanding described in this

report is a part of their thoughts and actions activated by the tasks (Schoenfeld, 1998).

Preface

At the end of the course, all teachers pointed out the importance of teachers’ knowledge of

students’ prior ideas by stating that the idea of probing students’ prior knowledge before planning

1300 KANG


lessons on relevant concepts was the most important learning outcome for them (CD). For

example, Melba used a metaphor of a teacher as a doctor who had ‘‘to know what [was] ailing a

patient before he [knew] what to give him or her’’ (FR). Within the common emphasis on teacher

knowledge of students’ prior ideas and its usefulness in teaching, the teachers expressed different

ways of using their knowledge of students’ prior ideas as the following two excerpts illustrate:

I think all science units can benefit from an inquiry as to the students’ ideas about the

subject matter. This is important not just so the teacher is not teaching what the students

already know, but also so the teacher can directly attack and question the misconceptions

and prove them incorrect to the students. (Morgan, FR)

The idea of letting my students’ previous knowledge guide my science instruction was a

new concept to me. . .. By building upon my students’ knowledge, and challenging their

misconceptions, they are far more likely to learn and develop sound science concepts.

(Nara, FR)

The teachers believed that they could use their knowledge of students’ prior ideas to avoid

repeating things that their students already knew, to confront students’ misconceptions, and to

assist students in constructing new knowledge.

The teachers’ different emphases on ways to use their knowledge of students’ prior ideas

demonstrated the teachers’ various understandings of conceptual learning as described in what

follows. In the next subsections, different patterns of subgroups of teachers’ understanding of

conceptual learning are reported. To illustrate typical patterns, specific cases are presented. The

depth of the descriptions of the cases is limited to the extent that they represent the patterns

common to other teachers within subgroups.

Epistemological Dimension

Kinchin’s (2000) three categories of epistemological position were found to be useful in

understanding the teachers’ different ways of adopting conceptual change teaching. The teachers

demonstrated some of the characteristics of each position in various contexts as they were learning

together about the conceptual change pedagogy. However, subgroups of teachers emphasized

certain beliefs and actions characteristic of Kinchin’s categories as they analyzed students’ ideas,

planned lessons, and implemented the lessons. Therefore, the teachers were grouped according to

their relatively different emphases on teaching for conceptual learning. The indicators of the

teachers’ epistemological positions included whether they believed in the strong impact of

students’ prior ideas on their learning (misconceptions view or systems view), whether they

acknowledged students’ cognitive thinking capabilities in constructing meanings (systems view),

whether they tried to confront students’ alternative ideas (misconceptions view or systems view)

or did not address students’ prior ideas in class (positivist view), whether they built upon students’

prior ideas that were consistent with scientific ones (systems view), and whether they provided

students with opportunities to compare different ideas as competing theories (systems view). Data

of six teachers (Jake, Kayla, Melba, Merrill, Morgan, and Tyrel) indicated epistemological

positions close to a positivist view, data of four teachers (Ella, Joyce, Kendra, and May) indicated a

misconceptions view, and data of four teachers (Angela, Cleva, Nara, and Sarah) indicated a

systems view.

Positivist view group. The teachers in this group presented scientific knowledge as given facts

instead of relating to students’ ideas or engaging students cognitively in discussion. Although they

identified students’ prior ideas they neither provided students with opportunities to reflect on their

alternative ideas in comparison with scientific ideas nor utilized students’ scientifically sound



ideas or cognitive capabilities during instruction. Rather, they focused on presentation and

reinforcement of scientific ideas just as Morgan succinctly claimed: ‘‘I feel that much of my

success stemmed from the repetition of the concepts that was presented to the children’’ (FR).

When analyzing students’ prior ideas, the teachers in this group focused on what students did

not know while students’ scientifically sound ideas were not explicitly recognized in planning and

teaching lessons. For example, Melba asked students how magnets work. All but one of the

students’ responses referred to the attractive force of magnetism, using terms such as ‘‘stick to,’’

‘‘pull,’’ ‘‘grab,’’ ‘‘picks up,’’ ‘‘attract,’’ and ‘‘hold.’’ Only one student answered ‘‘I don’t know’’

(initial interview data). In addition, 35% of the students mentioned refrigerator magnets and 24%

mentioned magnets’ attracting metals. This was interpreted by Melba as ‘‘The majority of the

students had no knowledge [italics added] that magnets could be used other than holding paper to

the refrigerator. . .. Many believed that all metals stuck to magnets’’ (SI). Similarly, the other

teachers in this group highlighted missing knowledge when they identified students’ prior

knowledge (Table 3). A student’s response of ‘‘I don’t know’’ was accepted literally without

further examination, and scientifically sound ideas were not explicitly noted in the analyses.

The teachers’ emphasis on missing elements in students’ knowledge was consistent with their

teaching approaches in which they adopted various ways to explain and illustrate scientific ideas

without appropriation of students’ cognitive resources. For example, Melba provided students

with opportunities to explore magnetic force. She could have encouraged students to explore

repulsive force as well as attractive force. However, the exploration stopped short of expanding

students’ ideas to magnetic force or magnetic field. Instead, exploration only played the role of

introduction to the topic and remained as mere observation that was never revisited in the unit.

Subsequent lessons were planned to fill the gap of students’ knowledge. Melba devoted a week to

teaching about the Earth’s magnetism and helping students make a compass to introduce them to

the use of magnets other than refrigerator magnets (LP). In her video-recorded lessons, students

were not invited to contribute to class discussion. Instead, Melba dominated the discussion and

allowed only a very short wait-time for student responses (VT). This was consistent with her focus

on gaps in student knowledge. At the end of the unit, in response to the question of how a magnet

works, 25% of students demonstrated growth in their answers from their initial ideas by

appropriating the ideas presented during the unit. Exemplary responses included: ‘‘Magnet has a

north pole and a south pole and it attracts to iron, some metals it attracts to. North and north do not

attract. North pole and south pole attract.’’ ‘‘If you put two north sides together they won’t stick,

but if you put a north and a south together they will stick.’’ These answers demonstrated a coherent

understanding of magnetic force, which was different from their initial ideas. On the other hand,

37% of students mentioned new ideas taught during the unit but did not completely integrate them

into their conceptions: ‘‘A magnet has stuff in it that can attract metal. . .. The Earth is like a giant

magnet.’’ ‘‘They don’t stick to all metals. They don’t stick to copper or aluminum.’’ Although

these answers included ideas taught during the unit, the students did not integrate them into a

coherent framework; instead, they briefly mentioned one or two pieces of information in addition

to their initial answers. The other students repeated the same ideas that they presented in the

beginning (final interview data). Upon analysis of students’ final ideas, Melba concluded, ‘‘My

students did not have misconceptions about north and south poles because they had no [prior]

exposure to this content area. The changes in my students’ conceptions were based mainly on the

fact that they learned something new about magnets’’ (FR). Consistent with her analysis of

students’ prior ideas that focused on gaps in student knowledge, she attributed student learning to

accretion of new ideas to existing ones in her final analysis.

Similarly, the other members of this group did not invite students’ ideas during instruction. They

focused on presenting scientific ideas and reinforcing them through various activities. In other

1302 KANG


Table 3

Teachers’ understanding of conceptual learning in epistemological dimension

Interpretation of Students’ Ideas Teaching Method

Positivist viewJake Students need to know different

components of storm and safetyprocedures.

Explaining water cycle, rain, lightning,thunder, and wind in relation todifferent forms of storms and safetythrough book-reading, role-play, anddrawing.

Kayla Most students do not know changesin states of matter.

Explaining states of matter and changesof state in water through book-reading,worksheets, and observations of ice.

Melba Many believed that all metals stuckto magnet; students do not knowmagnets are used in variousways.

Explaining the Earth’s magnetismthrough book-reading and making acompass.

Merrill Students do not know how rainforms in terms of water cycle.

Explaining water cycle throughbook-reading, role-play of water cycle,and demonstration of rain formationsimulation using boiling water.

Morgan Most students do not know water asa component of cloud.

Describing various forms of cloudsthrough book-reading, simulation ofcloud formation using hot water,drawing clouds, simulation of amoving cloud using water and shavingcream, writing cloud poems, and cloudJeopardy.

Tyrel Students do not know howmountains form.

Explaining erosion and depositionthrough simulations using a streamtable, schoolyard field-trip, andexperiment of slope effect on erosionand deposition.

Misconceptions viewElla Students believe that heavy things

fall faster than lighter ones.Demonstration of dropping balls of

different mass using the prediction–observation–explanation method.

Joyce Students believe that all volcanoesare cone-shaped and eruptviolently.

Explaining how different shapes ofvolcanoes are formed bydemonstration of two types of lavaflow, density simulation, andconvection current.

Kendra Students believe that constellation isa real shape in the sky.

Engaging students in various activitiesusing the analogy of the constellationto a dot-to-dot picture.

May Students believe that gasoline isgas; all liquids are drinks.

Engaging students in activities in whichthey identify states of variousexamples.

Systems viewAngela Students had scientific but limited

concepts and difficulties inunderstanding gas state andchanges in states.

Engaging students in class discussionusing student investigations anddemonstration of boiling water andreflection discussion.

(Continued )



words, they did not involve students in evaluating their prior ideas in relation to scientific ones nor

did they utilize students’ cognitive resources. Therefore, their lessons were not closely connected to

students’ prior ideas. The teachers in this group probed students’ prior ideas only to find out students’

lack of knowledge and attributed the students’ learning to repeated exposure to new ideas.

Misconceptions view group. The teachers in this group focused on students’ misconceptions

and tried to confront them through purposefully planned lessons. They demonstrated a simplistic

view of conceptual change teaching in which confrontation of students’ alternative ideas with

presentations of counter-examples was considered effective. They used counter-examples to

justify scientific ideas and to replace students’ misconceptions with scientific concepts. The

teachers also emphasized that students’ misconceptions were difficult to expel.

May’s case represented the group’s typical patterns in their understanding and utilization of

conceptual change teaching. She taught a unit on states of matter to second graders. She identified

students’ prior ideas using the K-W-L method. Each individual student’s profile of K-W-L

was recorded and used in her action research. Her students demonstrated various levels of

understanding about states of matter, which included scientifically sound examples and alternative

ideas. For example, in response to her question about what a solid is and how they knew it, students

answered: ‘‘It’s hard like ice.’’ ‘‘Rock is a solid because it didn’t break when I threw it.’’ ‘‘[A] door

is a solid. It’s hard.’’ To her question about what a liquid is and how they knew it, students

answered: ‘‘Water [is a liquid]. You can put your hands through it and it keeps the same shape.’’

‘‘Milk is a liquid. I don’t know why.’’ ‘‘Gatorade is a liquid. You can drink it.’’ To her question

about what a gas is and how they knew it students answered: ‘‘Gasoline is [a] gas because you have

to go to the gas station.’’ ‘‘Soda is a gas because you shake it and open it, the gas [will be] all over

the place.’’ ‘‘Helium is [a] gas. You blow up a balloon and let it out’’ (K-W-L chart).

In her student ideas report and lesson plans, May recognized and highlighted students’

difficulties in differentiating the everyday term ‘‘gas,’’ referring to gasoline, from the scientific

term ‘‘gas,’’ which refers to the gaseous state (SI and LP). This issue of language in science

learning was discussed in the course through reading and discussing studies by Driver, Guesne,

and Tiberghien (1985) and Shapiro (1994, pp. 33–44). May explicitly referred to these chapters

when she discussed the students’ ideas (CD and LP). She also noted, ‘‘Not all liquids are

drinkable,’’ in her analysis of students’ direct connection between liquids and drinks (SI).

However, she ignored students’ ideas as a potential resource for teaching. She could have utilized

Table 3

(Continued)

Interpretation of Students’ Ideas Teaching Method

Cleva Students believed that the Sunmoved around the Earth and wereconfused about causes of day andnight.

Challenging students’ geocentric view byposing a problem about relative motionand engaging students in reflection oninitial ideas to ask them to modify firstday drawing of the Earth and the Sun.

Nara Students believed that light thingsfloat and heavy things sink.Students believed that air withinan object affects sinking andfloating.

Engaging students in problem-solvingas to why watermelon floats andsupporting their learning by providingdemonstrations of density of solidsand liquids using the prediction–observation–explanation method.

Sarah Students did not connect weather toother phenomena; students haddifficulties in causal reasoning.

Engaging students in various observationsof weather effects and developing aweather forecast.

1304 KANG


students’ examples of objects in different states and ideas about the properties of the objects in

order to construct the abstract concept of states of matter with her students. The possibility of

drawing general properties of states from students’ prior ideas that were scientifically sound but

fragmented (cognitive resources) was neither recognized nor utilized. This limited focus on

student misconceptions was evident even when the teachers had opportunities to discuss explicitly

the use of students’ cognitive resources during the course.

May planned a series of lessons in which each day she described characteristics of each state

of matter directly to the students, read parts of a trade book about each state, and asked questions

regarding the content. She then gave students worksheets that required them to identify states of

matter in pictures. After 3 days of lessons on the three states of matter, the students had a 2-day

collage activity in which they worked in groups to cut examples of the three states from magazines,

grouped them, and presented them to their peers (SA). To address the students’ alternative ideas

that May recognized, she repeatedly mentioned that gasoline was a liquid and provided students

with examples of liquids that were dangerous for them to drink (VT and FR). However, her

confrontation of students’ alternative ideas stopped short of evaluating different ideas with her

students. She could have provided students with opportunities to discuss how language was used

differently in science compared with everyday contexts by utilizing additional examples that were

familiar to the students. Throughout her unit plans, however, May only emphasized repeated

presentation of scientific ideas rather than opportunities for students to reflect on their alternative

ideas or utilizing their scientific ideas.

During her instruction, May guided the students to ‘‘right examples’’ for each state (VT and

CD). According to May, all of the lessons were designed to ‘‘change students’ misconceptions’’

and, in particular, ‘‘to convince them that gasoline is not gas’’ (FR). May seemed to believe that

repeated presentation of the right examples could help students develop scientific ideas. Her final

assessment included showing students pictures of various objects, such as a photograph of a

gasoline tank, and asking them to write down the states of these examples (SA). Of the 20 students,

4 students wrote gas in the picture of a gasoline tank (SA). May finally concluded:

For those students that changed their misconception about gasoline, it was the explanation of

the two words and how they related to the states of matter. . . . I believe that my teaching

methods are successful for conceptual change. I did have several success stories with my

students. Research states that in some cases no matter what you do to change a person’s

misconceptions they will hold on to what they believe because it is part of who they are. (FR).

Instead of questioning her rather simplistic approach to confronting students’ alternative

ideas, May accepted the tenacity of students’ alternative ideas and stopped further searching for

alternative teaching methods.

Similarly, the other members of this group confronted students’ alternative ideas in a naive

way in which mere presentation of counter-evidence was considered to be an effective approach.

There were no explicit opportunities for students to compare students’ ideas with counter-

evidence. It was assumed that students would evaluate evidence when presented to them without

any explicit instruction. Therefore, the ways of teaching adopted by the teachers in this group were

not radically different from those of the positivist group except that the teachers recognized

alternative conceptions and purposefully presented counter-evidence. Neither group explicitly

involved students in evaluating their prior ideas in relation to scientific ones nor did they utilize

students’ cognitive resources. The teachers in this group probed students’ prior ideas only to find

out students’ non-scientific ideas so that they could confront them during lessons, whereas the

positivist view group focused instruction on students’ lack of knowledge to fill the knowledge gap.



Systems view group. The teachers in this group emphasized students’ thinking processes and

paid more attention to what students knew. They expected their students to progress from

scientifically sound but naive ideas to scientific ones through a series of thought-provoking

activities. Most of all, they engaged students in thinking processes in which students’ ideas were

discussed along with scientific ideas.

Angela’s case provides an example. She taught states of matter to first graders. Angela

identified students’ prior ideas about states of matter using the K-W-L method. Her students

provided some scientifically sound examples of the three states, but were also confused about gas

just like May’s students. For example, students responded to a question about what comes to mind

when they heard the word liquid: ‘‘A liquid is fuel’’; ‘‘Liquid is water’’; and ‘‘A liquid washes

hands clean.’’ In response to what a solid is, students responded: ‘‘The ground’’; ‘‘Cement’’; and

‘‘A hard rock.’’ When Angela asked whether the whiteboard in the classroom was a solid, students

responded negatively for various reasons: ‘‘It is white’’; ‘‘It is plastic’’; and ‘‘It feels soft.’’ In

response to what a gas is, students answered: ‘‘It can make fire’’; ‘‘When you run out [of it] your car

stops’’; and ‘‘Gas is like smoke’’ (K-W-L chart). In her analysis of students’ ideas, Angela

recognized students’ scientifically sound ideas as well as difficulties in understanding of concepts:

The basic misconception of a liquid was that it was only gasoline for your car, or soap.

Most of the children made this association with the word liquid, so I knew that I had to

expand on that and show them that those answers were correct [italics added], but that

many other things were liquids. . . . The students knew that solid things were hard like

rocks or cement, but could not grasp how water might become hard or solid. . . . They also

knew that solids can’t be poured out of a bottle. . . . (SI)

Angela paid attention to both scientific ideas and misconceptions, and focused on students’

thinking patterns. In her analysis of students’ prior ideas, she noted that students’ examples of liquid,

solid, and gas were mostly correct but limited because ‘‘they were not able to describe states of

matter as general properties’’ and ‘‘[they] did not recognize the possibility of changes of state’’ (SI).

Angela planned lessons to expand students’ scientific ideas by expecting them to be able to

understand states of matter as properties that can be changed in certain conditions (LP). She

decided to teach about liquid first ‘‘because [she] found students knew about liquid the most’’

(LP). Students demonstrated more extensive knowledge about liquid than other states in terms of

examples of liquids and descriptions of the characteristics of the liquid state (K-W-L chart).

Angela started with a student’s example of water as liquid. She asked students why water was a

liquid and received responses such as ‘‘It moves around’’ and ‘‘It is a drink.’’ She recorded these

responses on the board (VT). At the same time, she set up an evaporation observation at the corner

of the classroom as a long-term project to use later to address changes of state from liquid to gas.

Students started creating a science journal entitled ‘‘Water,’’ in which they drew observations of

water in different states each day (SA). She then provided students with bottles of various liquids

and explained the properties of the liquid state by appropriating the students’ ideas recorded on the

board (VT). She asked students to find similarities to determine why they were all liquids. At the

end of the lesson, students were provided with an empty bottle and asked to fill it with any type of

liquid from home. This homework became the beginning of the next day’s lesson on solids. As

most of the students brought water, she showed a frozen bottle of water and discussed the

differences between the two states and changes of state by asking students to compare the two

bottles. Students drew liquid water on the first page of their journals with a title, ‘‘Water is a liquid’’

(SA). Then, students drew frozen water on the second page with a title, ‘‘Water is a solid’’ (SA).

The next day, the students watched a movie on the solid state of matter and discussed the

1306 KANG


comparison of the two bottles in relation to the content of the movie. For three days, students had

been checking changes in the water level by evaporation. Angela used inhaling and exhaling of air

to explain the gaseous state. Each student was given ice to observe the changes of state (LP). Next,

Angela demonstrated boiling water to show a change from liquid into gas and discussed the long-

term observation of evaporation. Finally, students drew boiling water on the third page of their

journals with the title ‘‘Water is a gas’’ (SA). Students presented their water books in class. Final

assessment included science journals, a revisit to the K-W-L chart to complete the ‘‘L’’ part of the

chart, and a written test in which students put the letters ‘‘L,’’ ‘‘G,’’ or ‘‘S’’ beside the pictures to

indicate states and cut and sorted pictures into three groups of different states. Of the 29 students,

2 failed to sort the pictures completely, 5 missed one or two categories in the sorting task, and

22 (78%) answered all correctly (SA). In addition, the students in Angela’s class were asked to

reflect on whether they had changed their ideas during the final assessment (LP). Thus, students

were able to evaluate their own learning.

Similarly, the other teachers of the systems view group paid attention to students’ thinking

patterns and engaged their ideas and thinking processes during class discussions. Cleva engaged

students in thinking by challenging them to prove that a car was in motion when it seemed as if

the scenery was moving (relative motion). This was done to challenge the students’ geocentric

view. Nara challenged students to explain how a heavy watermelon could float. Sarah provided

students with multiple opportunities to observe various weather phenomena and their effects on

other phenomena in order to encourage the students to connect them as causal relations

(Table 3). All these teachers’ video-recorded teaching practices demonstrated their invitation of

students’ ideas and student thinking to class discussion. Moreover, the teachers explicitly

emphasized reflective discussions in which they encouraged students to reflect on their initial

ideas in comparison to the ideas at the end of the unit lessons so that students were able to

compare different ideas as well as their growth in knowledge. Therefore, conceptual change was

not merely to replace misconceptions but also to guide students toward scientific thinking that

may result in scientific ideas.

The cases described so far exemplify the differences in teachers’ epistemological stances in

understanding and implementing conceptual change pedagogy. The teachers exhibiting a

positivist view did not take students’ prior ideas into consideration when they planned lessons, and

the main teaching method was presentation of scientific ideas to students in various ways. They

focused on accumulation of scientific ideas as a way of learning. The teachers exhibiting a

misconceptions view purposefully designed lessons to confront students’ prior ideas. The main

teaching method for conceptual change in this group was a presentation of counter-evidence.

These teachers seemed to have a simplistic view of learning in which conceptions were viewed as

needing to be replaced, and the mental process of replacement remained unaddressed. In contrast

to the teachers in the previous two groups, the teachers exhibiting a systems view encouraged

students to think differently by expanding their ideas. In planning lessons, they focused on

students’ scientific ideas and started their lessons from students’ scientifically sound ideas.

Moreover, lessons focused more on thinking processes than obtaining a body of scientific

information or replacement of misconceptions.

Ontological Dimension

The ontological dimension of learning addresses the ontological status of concepts—that is,

the nature of concepts. In this section, I present the extent to which the teachers recognized and/or

understood the ontological aspects of conceptual learning and utilized them in teaching.



Chi et al.’s (1994) three ontological categories (matter, process, and mental state) and

Thagard’s (1992) view of conceptual change as changes in conceptual structures were used to

identify the teachers’ recognition of the ontological status of students’ conceptions. All teachers

reported that most of their students underwent conceptual changes as a result of their teaching. Out

of 14 teachers, 6 teachers’ (Ella, Jake, Joyce, May, Melba, and Morgan) reports on student learning

and student artifacts demonstrated students’ conceptual learning within the same ontological

status. The other 8 teachers’ (Angela, Cleva, Kayla, Kendra, Merrill, Nara, Sarah, and Tyrel)

reports and student artifacts demonstrated deep conceptual change, that is, changes in conceptual

structures and across ontological categories. The teachers’ probing methods, students’

preconceptions and their ontological categories, and students’ postinstruction conceptions and

their ontological categories are compared in what follows.

Conceptual change within ontological categories. Melba’s case provides an example of

the teachers whose students’ conceptual changes seemed limited to remaining within

ontological categories. Melba reported that her second-grade students were familiar with the

attractive forces of magnets in connection with a typical use of magnets on refrigerators but

lacked knowledge of other uses of magnets: ‘‘The majority of the students had no knowledge

that magnets could be used other than holding paper to the refrigerator. My students only knew

that magnets stuck to things’’ (SI). According to student interview data, her students’ concept

of magnetism was connected to specific objects such as a refrigerator magnet (matter

category) instead of the interactions involved in magnetism (process category). Melba’s unit

lessons included exploring how magnets work, becoming aware of the Earth’s magnetism,

making a compass, and making a refrigerator magnet. She believed that students should learn

about two poles of magnets and the repulsive force of magnetism (LP). During the course of

her teaching, however, Melba focused on students’ experiencing various uses of magnets, such

as in a compass and in toys. In so doing, her unit instruction fell short of achieving a higher

degree of conceptual change in which students’ understanding of magnets shifted from

fragmented information or the ontological category of matter (knowledge of different kinds

and uses of magnets) to structured knowledge or process category (knowledge of how

magnetism works). Later, she reflected that she could have focused more on the nature of

magnetic force than she did:

I believe that I did not consider the misconceptions of the students completely. . .. I started

out that way with lesson one but then lost course. . .. [In my pretest] I asked students how a

magnet works. . .. I should have inquired about the strength of magnets and what magnets

are attracted to. (FR)

During microteaching, Melba demonstrated an appropriate understanding of magnetic force,

magnetic field, and the Earth’s magnetism (CD), although she did not teach magnetic force and

field in her classroom. She also constructed a concept map as a way to plan her lessons, which

demonstrated her knowledge of magnetism (LP). However, as she reflected on her teaching at the

end of the project, she spent more time on the Earth’s magnetism and making a compass because

she found students were struggling with the concept and they spent more time on making a

compass than she expected (FR). Thus, Melba added new instances of using magnetism to her

students’ conceptual structure, such as a compass in relation to the Earth’s magnetism and types of

metals magnets are attracted to, while the ontological nature of most of her students’ conceptions

stayed the same. As noted in the previous subsection, 25% of her students demonstrated an

organized concept of magnetism as a process involving force, whereas the others demonstrated

knowledge fragments (final interview data). As Melba’s reflection implied, more students may

1308 KANG


have demonstrated a deeper understanding of magnetism if she had focused more on magnetic

force and magnetic field to depict magnetism as an interactive process.

Instructions by other teachers in Melba’s group also resulted only in changes within

ontological categories. Only minor revisions of students’ conceptual structure were found in

students’ artifacts (Table 4).

According to these data, students’ prior ideas had the nature of case-specificity in which

students’ conceptions were based on specific cases rather than general concepts abstracted from

various experiences or the processes that caused the phenomena. The teachers in this group did not

explicitly address the limitations of students’ case-specific concepts when analyzing their ideas.

This implies the teachers’ lack of attention to or understanding of the ontological nature of

concepts. As a result, they enriched students’ ideas by providing students with more instances of

each phenomenon but stopped short of deepening students’ conceptions through developing

abstracted conceptual structures and understanding of underlying principles of the phenomena.

Conceptual change across ontological categories. Cleva’s case is an example of teachers who

focused on changing students’ ontological perspectives. To probe students’ ideas, she asked her

second-grade students to draw any movement of objects in space, including the Earth and the Sun,

and to draw or write why daytime and nighttime happened (see Kang & Howren [2004] for further

analysis of student data). Twelve of 17 students indicated that the Sun moved around the Earth by

arrows, circles, or written descriptions (SA). In her students’ drawings, Cleva recognized that

students needed the concept of ‘‘relative motion’’ to understand the limitations of their perception-

based idea of celestial motion and to understand causes of day and night (SI). During her unit

instruction she discussed students’ experience of relative motion such as looking out of the

window in a moving car (CD and LP). By relating students’ experience of relative motion to their

observation of the Sun in the sky, she aimed to overcome students’ perception-based

understanding so that they could understand the causes of day and night (FR). This was then

connected to students’ observation of the phases of the Moon in which students ‘‘never thought

about how it works’’ (SI). Cleva suspected that her students’ understanding of the Earth moving

Table 4

Teachers’ Ontological understanding of student conceptions: Teachers who taught for conceptual change

within ontological categories

Teacher(Probing Method)

Pre-Conceptions(Ontological Category)

Post-Conceptions(Ontological Category)

Ella (POE) Heavy or small things fall down first.(Matter).

All round objects fall down at thesame time because of gravity(Matter).

Jake (K-W-L) Storms are always related to dark cloud,thunder and lightning (Matter).

Various types of storms (Matter).

Joyce (essay test) All volcanoes are tall and cone shapedmountains and erupt all of a sudden(Matter).

Various types of volcanoes andtheir formation (Matter).

May (K-W-L) States as object specific attributes(Matter). Gas [gasoline] is gas.

Identification of states of variousinstances (Matter). Gas[gasoline] is liquid.

Melba (interview) Students knew a few instances of theuse of magnet (Matter).

Magnets are used in compassthrough the Earth’s magneticpoles (Matter).

Morgan (K-W-L) Few students mentioned water ascomponents of cloud (Matter).

Cloud is made of water. Varioustypes of clouds (Matter).



around the Sun helped them to comprehend how the movement of the Earth and Moon causes the

moon phases (FR). At the end of the unit, Cleva asked her students to self-evaluate their initial

drawings as if they were teachers. All students who demonstrated a geocentric view changed their

drawings or commented on their initial drawings, such as ‘‘You think the Sun goes around the

Earth. You are wrong. The Earth goes around the Sun. That is called orbit. . .’’ (SA). Moreover,

most of the students described or drew phases of the Moon as caused by the movement of the Earth

and the Moon in relation to the Sun (SA). Therefore, students developed a process view of phases

of the Moon that depicted them as resulting from movement of the celestial bodies. In contrast to

the teachers in the previous group, Cleva focused on students’ perception-based thinking patterns,

which resulted in emphasizing the causes for day and night on the Earth and phases of the Moon.

Cleva could have emphasized presenting celestial motion and phases of the moon as facts by

asking ‘‘what’’ questions. Instead, she emphasized ‘‘how’’ or ‘‘why’’ in planning and teaching

the unit, which was consistent with focusing on shifting student conceptions’ ontological status

toward a more process view.

In Nara’s case, she found that her students conceptualized sinking and floating as matter-

specific properties (e.g., ‘‘Metals sink’’ and ‘‘Plastics float’’ [SA]). She introduced the notion of

density and taught relative density between the object and the liquid as a mechanism of explaining

why things float and sink. As a result, most of her students described sinking and floating as a

mechanism of relative density instead of a matter-specific property (SA). Therefore, students’ ideas

about sinking and floating were connected through the introduction of the density concept, which

resulted in a change in structure in their conceptions. Similarly, the other teachers in this group also

emphasized the process of phenomena, and hence changed most students’ ontological perspectives

from matter to process and created or refined conceptual structures significantly (Table 5).

Table 5

Teachers’ ontological understanding of student conceptions: Teachers who taught for conceptual change

across ontological categories

Teacher(Probing Method)

Preconceptions(Ontological Category)

Postconceptions(Ontological Category)

Angela (K-W-L) States as object-specific attributes.Students failed to recognize thepossibility of changes in states(Matter).

States of matter as a general term.States can change (Process).

Cleva (drawing and caption) Phases of moon as given (Matter). Causes of phases of moon (Process).Kayla (K-W-L) States as object specific attributes.

No indication of the possibility ofchanges in states (Matter).

States can change (Process).

Kendra (K-W-L and drawing) Constellations as given (Matter). Forexample: ‘‘Stars make pictures.’’

Constellation is a humanconstruction (Process).

Merrill (K-W-L) Rain as a teleological product(Mental states). For example:‘‘God makes rain’’ and ‘‘Rainoccurs because we need it.’’

Rain as a part of water cycle(Process).

Nara (POE) Sinking and floating as matterspecific properties (Matter). Forexample: ‘‘Objects that have airfloat,’’ ‘‘Wood floats,’’ ‘‘Metal sinks.’’

Relative density determines sinkingand floating (Process).

Sarah (K-W-L) Weather is a set phenomenonunrelated to other events (Matter).

Weather as a causal agent ofeveryday life (Process).

Tyrel (K-W-L and wordassociation)

Mountains as given geologicalobjects (Matter).

Mountains are formed by geologicalactivities (Process).

1310 KANG


Conceptual structure maps drawn for each teacher were useful for understanding the ways in

which the teachers understood conceptual learning in the ontological dimension. For example,

Kayla reported that most of her students had some understanding of different states of matter but

they lacked the concept of matter and changes of state (SI). In her probing, students responded to

her question of what a liquid was by providing various appropriate examples of liquids. However,

for her question about the possibility of changes of state, only 1 of 13 students answered positively

(SA). Kayla elaborated how she would teach the unit in her lesson plans and presented

justifications in which she emphasized focusing on changes of state. After the unit instruction, she

reported that most students were able to identify states of matter as general properties and explain

why states changed (FR). Students performed a final task where they grouped pictures into

different states of matter and identified those pictures in which states were changing and explained

why the changes occurred (SA). The successful completion rate ranged from 82% to 100% on

tasks of identifying states of matter and from 80% to 100% on the tasks of identifying changes of

state and their cause (SA). On the basis of these reports, conceptual structure maps of before and

after unit instructions were constructed to understand Kayla’s ontological understanding of

student conceptual learning (Figure 1).

Figure 1 demonstrates Kayla’s understanding of the ontological differences between

students’ prior ideas and scientific conceptions to be learned. The arrows after the instructions

show that Kayla recognized the need for students to conceptualize relations among different states

(Thagard, 1992) and the nature of the concept (Chi et al., 1994) in terms of changes in states.

Moreover, by adding a new concept (the concept of matter) to students’ existing ideas, Kayla’s

instruction went beyond students’ conception of states as object-specific attributes to concepts that

were general to matter. On the other hand, the conceptual structure maps of the teachers in the

other group had fewer significant changes in their structures. They had additional instances added

without changes in hierarchical connections or creations of interactive relations to indicate any

process.

Figure 1. An example of a conceptual structure map used in understanding teachers’ ontological

interpretations of student learning (Kayla’s case).



Discussion and Implications

This study was initiated by the following questions: How much does research in science

education help teachers teach science in the classroom? How can we as researchers and teacher

educators make research more meaningful and accessible to teachers? In this study, a conceptual

change pedagogy taken from extensive research in science education was made accessible to the

teachers through teacher action research in a professional development course. The findings

described the extent to which teachers recognized and/or understood conceptual learning in

epistemological and ontological dimensions when formally introduced to the pedagogy for the

first time.

The teachers in this study demonstrated varying degrees of understanding and utilization of

conceptual change pedagogy. In examining the range of teachers’ understandings, Kinchin’s

(2000) categories of epistemological position and Chi et al.’s (1994) and Thagard’s (1992)

ontological aspects of conceptual learning were used. The findings illustrate three ways in which

the teachers interpreted and utilized students’ prior ideas in the epistemological dimension. The

teachers in the positivist view group (6 of 14 teachers) focused on lack of knowledge in students’

prior ideas and emphasized filling the knowledge gap. The misconceptions view group (4 of 14

teachers), on the other hand, focused on students’ alternative ideas and emphasized countering

them from a naive understanding of conceptual change as replacing misconceptions with scientific

concepts. These two groups were different in terms of what they focused on when analyzing

student ideas. However, their teaching approaches were similar in that scientific ideas were

presented to students without explicit opportunities for the students to compare different ideas. In

contrast, the systems view group (4 of 14 teachers) emphasized utilizing students’ scientific ideas

and guiding their thinking processes. Therefore, their teaching approaches explicitly involved

students as active thinkers and evaluators of different ideas.

In the ontological dimension, the teachers’ understanding of conceptual learning was

differentiated in two ways. Some teachers (6 of 14) taught the unit without changing the

ontological nature of students’ initial concepts. The others (8 of 14) taught the unit to change the

ontological nature of students’ initial concepts by shifting to a different ontological category and

creating or refining conceptual structures of students’ ideas. Therefore, the two groups were

different in the degree of students’ conceptual change in that the former focused on a weak form of

knowledge restructuring while the latter focused on a strong form of knowledge restructuring

(Harrison & Treagust, 2000).

In this study there was no clear connection between the teachers’ epistemological and

ontological understandings of conceptual change pedagogy. The three groups of teachers in the

epistemological dimension were not consistent with the groups in the ontological dimension. For

example, both Merrill and Morgan demonstrated a positivist perspective in their epistemological

understandings, but Merrill emphasized changing the ontological nature of students’ prior ideas

while Morgan did not. The lack of a connection between the two dimensional understandings

seems to have originated from the fact that the two dimensions address different aspects of

conceptual learning. On one hand, the epistemological dimension addresses the process of

learning that is directly related to how to teach; on the other hand, the ontological dimension

addresses the nature of concepts directly related to what to teach. For a clear understanding of

teacher learning, however, there needs to be further examination of the relationship between

teachers’ epistemological and ontological understandings of conceptual change pedagogy.

Borko (2004) claimed that there is a lack of research on what and how teachers learn from

professional development programs. The findings of this study illuminate what teachers learn

from a professional development course on conceptual change learning while providing some

1312 KANG


insight into professional development in promoting teaching for conceptual understanding. In

particular, the range of teachers’ understanding of conceptual change pedagogy described in this

study provides some insight into the support necessary for teachers’ learning about conceptual

change. Not many teachers in this study fully utilized students’ cognitive resources in teaching,

which suggests challenges for teachers in understanding the role of students’ cognitive resources

in conceptual learning. The notion of probing students’ prior ideas was easily accepted, just as

Osborne and Freyberg (1985) reported; however, not all teachers fully understood how to use the

information in science instruction. Seeing how the teachers did for the short period of time that

they were involved in this study, it seems that teachers need more time and support to fully

understand how to make use of students’ cognitive resources. Further, the findings indicate that

teachers need support for understanding the role of counter-evidence and students’ cognitive

resources in learning. Some of the teachers disregarded the need to confront students’ conceptions,

and others simply provided counter-evidence to change students’ misconceptions. Mere exposure

to counter-evidence does not effectively help students restructure their conceptions (Chinn &

Brewer, 1993; Clough, 2006; Lin, 2007). To help students develop deeper understanding, teachers

need to explicitly compare and evaluate different ideas with their students (Blank, 2000). Thus,

they need to be encouraged to invite students to evaluate different ideas explicitly and to attend

carefully to students’ responses to counter-evidence.

The need for long-term support for teachers’ learning about conceptual change is also

supported by data. The three experienced teachers (Kayla, Kendra, and Merrill) in this study had

understandings of conceptual change learning that was as varied as the inexperienced teachers.

This is consistent with findings by Morrison and Lederman (2003), suggesting that teaching

experience does not necessarily bring expertise in science teaching for conceptual learning. This

finding also points to the importance of providing ongoing professional development to promote

teachers’ connecting their experience to educational theory and research and teaching for

conceptual learning in particular.

The findings about teachers’ different foci on the nature of science’ conceptions in the

ontological dimension provide additional insight into teacher education and point to the need for

further research on teacher learning about conceptual change. Teachers do not need to focus only

on changes in ontological status. Thagard (1992) posited that changes of ontological status in

conceptual learning are analogous to the scientific revolution in the history of science (Kuhn,

1970). Just as scientific development is both evolutionary and revolutionary, teaching for

conceptual change can focus on both changes within and across ontological categories. Driver,

Asoko et al.’s (1994) study exemplified ontological demands of learning by providing two cases:

one demonstrating students’ successful ontological change in their conceptions, and the other

demonstrating students’ difficulty in gaining a new ontological perspective. Therefore, depending

on teaching contexts, such as student needs and ontological demands of the curriculum, teachers

may set different teaching goals in relation to the ontological nature of conceptions. This brings up

two further research questions. First, how do some teachers focus on changing the ontological

nature of student conceptions whereas others do not? It is plausible that teachers’ own conceptual

understanding might have affected their foci in the ontological dimension of learning because a

deeper understanding tends to lead to ‘‘why’’ and ‘‘how’’ questions rather than ‘‘what’’ questions

in learning and teaching. It is also plausible that the curriculum on which teachers base their

lessons could influence their foci in the ontological nature of conceptions. Further research on how

these elements and others are related to teachers’ attention to the ontological nature of conceptions

will provide better guidance for science teacher education in conceptual change pedagogy.

The first question about the sources of teachers’ different foci on the ontological nature of

concepts is related to the next question about whether the teachers’ foci on keeping or changing the



ontological nature of student conceptions was an informed decision—mere coincidence or based

on their metacognitive understanding of the differences in the ontological nature between the

concept to be taught and student ideas. Further studies about the process of teachers’ decisions on

their instructional goals for changing students’ conceptions in the ontological dimension will

inform teacher educators about teachers’ understanding of the ontological demands of learning.

Although determining the effect of teachers’ use of conceptual change pedagogy on student

learning was not the main purpose of this study, the analysis of the teachers’ report on students’

learning in the ontological dimension implies a possible relationship between teachers’

understandings of conceptual learning and students’ learning outcomes. In this study, students’

understanding was coarsely divided into minor changes in conceptual structures and deep changes

in structure and ontological categories. Further data on student learning outcomes in addition to

the data collected by the teachers and finely tuned analysis will illuminate the connections

between teachers’ ontological understanding of student conceptions and student learning

outcomes.

Researchers have extensively studied teachers’ epistemologies and their relationships to

teaching approaches (e.g., Appleton & Asoko, 1996). The findings of this study suggest that, in

addition to teachers’ epistemological understanding of student learning, the ontological

understanding of teachers should also be addressed when attempting to understand teaching

practices. In so doing, teacher education can foster students’ conceptual learning through

teachers’ in-depth understanding of conceptual change pedagogy. Further research on teachers’

understandings of student learning in the other dimensions, such as affective and social, will

provide a more complete understanding of teachers’ learning and ways to promote teaching for

conceptual learning in the classroom.

References

Akerson, V.L., Flick, L.B., & Lederman, N.G. (2000). The influence of primary children’s

ideas in science on teaching practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 363–385.

Appleton, K., & Asoko, H. (1996). A case study of a teacher’s progress toward using a

constructivist view of learning to inform teaching in elementary science. Science Education, 80,

165–180.

Asoko, H. (2002). Developing conceptual understanding in primary science. Cambridge

Journal of Education, 32, 153–164.

Blank, L. (2000). A metacognitive learning cycle: A better warranty for student

understanding? Science Education, 84, 486–506.

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain.

Educational Researcher, 33, 3–15.

Chi, M.T.H. (1992). Conceptual change within and across ontological categories:

Implications for learning and discovery in science. In R.N. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of

science: Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (vol. 15). Minneapolis, MN: University of

Minnesota Press.

Chi, M.T.H., Slotta, J.D., & de Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of

conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27–43.

Chinn, C.A., & Brewer, W.F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A

theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research,

63, 1–49.

Clough, M.P. (2006). Learners’ responses to the demands of conceptual change:

Considerations for effective nature of science instruction. Science & Education, 15, 463–494.

1314 KANG


diSessa, A.A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism

in the computer age (pp. 49–70). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P.H. (1994). Constructing scientific

knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23, 5–12.

Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Some features of children’s ideas and their

implications for teaching. In R. Driver (Ed.), Children’s ideas in science (pp. 193–201).

Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Driver, R., & Scott, P.H. (1996). Curriculum development as research: A constructivist

approach to science curriculum development and teaching. In D.F. Treagust R. Duit, & B.J. Fraser

(Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 94–108). New York:

Teachers College Press.

Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of

secondary science: Research into children’s ideas. New York: Routledge.

Duit, R. (2004). Bibliography STCSE: Students’ and teachers’ conceptions and science

education. Kiel, Germany: IPN-Leibniz Institute for Science Education. Retrieved December 30,

2004, from http:/ /www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse.html/.

Duit, R., & Treagust, D.F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving

science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 671–688.

Fensham, P.J., Gunstone, R., & White, R. (Eds.). (1994). The content of science: A

constructivist approach to its teaching and learning. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.

Fosnot, C.T., & Perry, R.S. (2005). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning.

In C.T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspective, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 8–38).

New York: Teachers College Press.

Glasson, G.E., & Lalik, R.V. (1993). Reinterpreting the learning cycle from a social

constructivist perspective: A qualitative study of teacher’s beliefs and practices. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 30, 187–207.

Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2003). Tapping students’ epistemological resources. Journal of the

Learning Sciences, 12, 53–91.

Harrison, A., & Treagust, D.F. (2000). Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds:

A case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry. Science Education, 84, 352–381.

Hashweh, M.Z. (1985). An exploratory study of teacher knowledge and teaching: The effects

of science teachers’ knowledge of subject-matter and their conceptions of learning on their

teaching. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 12A (UNI No. 8602482).

Hashweh, M.Z. (1996). Effects of science teachers’ epistemological beliefs in teaching.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 47–63.

Hewson, P.W. (1996). Teaching for conceptual change. In D.F. Treagust, R. Duit, &

B.J. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 131–140).

New York: Teachers College Press.

Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J.W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching

profession: What would it look like and how can we get one? Educational Researcher, 31, 3–15.

Kang, N.-H. (2007). Elementary teachers’ teaching for conceptual understanding: Learning

from action research. Journal of Science Teacher Education.

Kang, N.-H., & Howren, C. (2004). Teaching for conceptual understanding. Science and

Children, September, 28–32.

Kang, N.-H., & Wallace, C.S. (2005). Secondary science teachers’ use of laboratory

activities: Linking epistemological beliefs, goals, and practices. Science Education, 89, 140–165.

Kinchin, I.M. (2000). From ‘ecologist’ to ‘conceptual ecologist’: The utility of the conceptual

ecology analogy for teachers of biology. Journal of Biological Education, 34, 178–183.



Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Lin, J.-Y. (2007). Responses to anomalous data obtained from repeatable experiments in the

laboratory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 506–528.

Meyer, H. (2004). Novice and expert teachers’ conceptions of learners’ prior knowledge.

Science Education, 88, 970–983.

Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook

(2nd ed.). CA: Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mills, G.E. (2006). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (3rd ed.). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Mintzes, J.J., Wandersee, J.H., & Novak, J.D. (Eds.). (1998). Teaching science for

understanding: A human constructivist view. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Morrison, J.A., & Lederman, N.G. (2003). Science teachers’ diagnosis and understanding of

students’ preconceptions. Science Education, 87, 849–867.

Ogle, D.M. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text.

The Reading Teacher, 39, 564–570.

Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science: The implications of children’s

science. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Osborne, R., & Wittrock, M. (1983). Learning science: A generative process. Science

Education, 67, 489–508.

Patton, M.Q. (2001). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Pintrich, P.R., Marx, R.W., & Boyle, R.A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role

of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change.

Review of Educational Research, 63, 167–199.

Piquette, J.S., & Heikkinen, H.W. (2005). Strategies reported used by instructors to address

student alternate conceptions in chemical equilibrium. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,

42, 1112–1134.

Pocovı́ M.C. (2007). The effects of a history-based instructional material on the students’

understanding of field lines. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 107–132.

Rossman, G.B., & Rallis, S.F. (1998). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative

research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schoenfeld, A.H. (1998). Toward a theory of teaching in context. Issues in Education, 1,

1–94.

Shapiro, B. (1994). What children bring to light: A constructivist perspective on children’s

learning in science. New York: Teachers College Press.

Shymansky, J.A., Woodworth, G., Norman, O., Dunkhase, J., Matthews, C., & Liu, C. (1993).

A study of changes in middle school teachers’ understanding of selected ideas in science as a

function of an in-service program focusing on student preconceptions. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 30, 737–755.

Smith, J.P., diSessa, A.A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A

constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 115–163.

Strike, K.A., & Posner, G.J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. Duschl &

R. Hilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice

(pp. 147–176). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Tobin, K. (1993). Referents for making sense of science teaching. International Journal of

Science Education, 15, 241–254.

1316 KANG


Treagust, D.F., Duit, R., & Fraser, B.J. (1996). Improving teaching and learning in science and

mathematics. New York: Teachers College Press.

Tsui, C.-Y., & Treagust, D.F. (2007). Understanding genetics: Analysis of secondary

students’ conceptual status. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 205–235.

Tyson, L.M., Venville, G.J., Harrison, A.G., & Treagust, D.F. (1997). A multidimensional

framework for interpreting conceptual change events in the classroom. Science Education, 81,

387–404.

Venville, G.J., & Treagust, D.F. (1998). Exploring conceptual change in genetics using a

multidimensional interpretive framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 1031–

1055.

Vosniadou, C. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning

and Instruction, 4, 45–69.

Vosniadou, C., & Ioannides, C. (1998). From conceptual development to science education:

A psychological point of view. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 1213–1230.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and language. (A. Kozulin, Trans., newly revised and edited

by A. Kozulin). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wandersee, J.H., Mintzes, J.J., & Novak, J.D. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in

science. In D.L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 177–

210). New York: Macmillan.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

White, R.T. (1988). Learning science. New York: Basil Blackwell.

White, R.T. (1994). Dimensions of content. In P.J. Fensham, R.F. Gunstone, & R.T. White

(Eds.), The content of science: A constructivist approach to its teaching and learning (pp. 255–

262). Washington, DC: Falmer Press.

White, R.T., & Gunstone, R.F. (1992). Probing understanding. New York: Falmer Press.

Wittrock, M.C. (1994). Generative science teaching. In P.J. Fensham, R.F. Gunstone, &

R.T. White (Eds.), The content of science: A constructivist approach to its teaching and learning

(pp. 29–38). Washington, DC: Falmer Press.

Zohar, A. (2004). Elements of teachers’ pedagogical knowledge regarding instruction of

higher order thinking. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15, 293–312.

Zohar, A., & Aharon-Kravetsky, S. (2005). Exploring the effects of cognitive conflict and

direct teaching for students of different academic levels. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,

42, 829–855.



elementary teachers' epistemological and ontological understanding of teaching for conceptual...

Documents